I have a bigger problem with games reviewers who don't play the entire game.
Onyx said: I think trying to judge games on objective merits is really silly when the experience of each game is entirely subjective. There's nothing dubious about liking one game a hell of a lot more than another if they have similar, or even identical flaws. Because that's ignoring the positives of the games. If the negatives are all that defines how you see video games, get another hobby.
Seelas said: It's weird to mention Roger Ebert, because what Roger Ebert does is not even the same category of thing as what game reviewers do. Game reviewers are there to inform a purchasing decision. The core issue for them is "Should you spend your money on this?" It's not at all surprising that when they're trying to persuade you one way or the other on something like that, that the spirit of writing is generally disingenuous. What we actually need is some game criticism, like we have with film and music. People who will review a game not from the standpoint of what you should spend your money on, but what the game accomplishes artistically and makes you think about. I don't care that much about the inflated scores or bandwagoning so much as the fact that as prose, game reviews are generally insufferable to read and make me feel stupider.
Crisium said: 10 point scores are basically ABCDF anyway. 9-10 A 8 or 8.5 B 7 or 7.5 C 6 or 6.5 D 5.5 or less F It's true that the one half score gradiant is irrlevant once you get around 5.5 or so, but it works fine above that. But yeah, it's best they actually ackowledge that like 1UP does. It doesn't make sense when one crappy games gets a 3.5 and another gets a 4.0. They both are to be avoided like the plague unless you are a super fanboy of the series or genre. So just call it an F and get it over with.
